Peaceful Expression Cannot Be Criminalised On Vague Allegations: Madras High Court Quashes FIR Against Hindu Munnani Members Over Alleged Unlawful Protest
Sanchayita Lahkar
The High Court of Madras at Madurai, Single Bench of Justice L. Victoria Gowri quashed the police case against the petitioners, members of the Hindu Munnani, and set aside the FIR insofar as they were concerned. The dispute arose from allegations that the petitioners participated in a protest described by the prosecution as unlawful. The Court noted that the complaint attributed no specific overt act to any petitioner and did not allege violence, obstruction, public nuisance, or disturbance by them. It observed that criminal law cannot proceed on vague and omnibus allegations that effectively treat peaceful expression and assembly as an offence.
The Criminal Original Petition was filed by Kalanithimaran and six others, arrayed as accused, invoking Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The petitioners sought quashing of the First Information Report registered by the respondent police, insofar as they were concerned.
The FIR alleged commission of offences under Sections 189, 389, 5 and 85 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, corresponding to Sections 145, 151 and 283 of the Indian Penal Code. A total of 85 persons were named as accused. The allegations arose from a protest in which the accused were stated to be participants, and which the police treated as unlawful.
The petitioners contended that the protest was conducted peacefully and that they were not involved in any act of violence, obstruction, or disturbance to public order. It was further stated that on the same day and at the same venue, the respondent police granted permission to another group to conduct a protest, while permission sought by the petitioners was denied without justification.
The petitioners asserted that the FIR did not attribute any specific overt act to them and failed to disclose the essential ingredients of the offences alleged. On these grounds, they sought quashing of the FIR insofar as they were concerned.
The Court examined the FIR and noted that “no specific overt act has been attributed to the petitioners.” It was recorded that the allegations merely stated that the petitioners participated in a protest organised by their organisation, without alleging violence, obstruction, public nuisance, or disturbance.
The Court observed that “Article 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(b) of the Constitution guarantee freedom of speech and expression, and the right to peaceful assembly without arms.” It was stated that these rights could be restricted only by reasonable restrictions provided by law and that peaceful protest was recognised as a democratic right. The Court recorded that criminal prosecution could not be launched unless the alleged acts squarely fell within the ingredients of a penal offence.
With reference to the contention of selective permission, the Court noted that “the respondent police permitted another group to protest but denied permission to the petitioners,” and recorded that such action “prima facie indicates discriminatory action,” offending Article 14 of the Constitution.
The Court analysed the statutory provisions and recorded that the ingredients of Sections 145, 151 and 283 IPC were not made out. It was observed that Section 145 required continuation in an unlawful assembly after being commanded to disperse, Section 151 required knowledge or intention of committing a cognizable offence, and Section 283 required actual obstruction or danger to the public, none of which were disclosed on a plain reading of the FIR. The Court stated that “criminal law cannot be invoked on vague and omnibus allegations,” particularly when such allegations sought to criminalise peaceful expression.
The Court recorded that “the continuation of the investigation against the petitioners would amount to abuse of process of law. Accordingly, this Court is inclined to exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., 1973 (corresponding provision of Section 528 of BNSS) to secure the ends of justice. The Criminal Original Petition is allowed,” and that “the FIR in Crime No.428 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police is quashed insofar as the petitioners are concerned. The connected miscellaneous petition is closed.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Mr. Niranjan S. Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent: Mr. S. Ravi, Additional Public Prosecutor
Case Title: Kalanithimaran v. State of Tamil Nadu
Case Number: Crl.O.P.(MD).No.21388 of 2025
Bench: Justice L. Victoria Gowri
